True Facts about Time & infinite parallel worlds.

I reread your post.

You suffer from a flawed guess about my reading skills and a flawed guess about the importance of your 115 year old rehash of Minkowski spacetime geometry.

In an effort to "just talk about the damn thing" I posted my opinion.

Apparently you just wanna talk about the damn thing with delusional people who agree with your concept that a sequence of events can be something other that a timely process.

Lots Of Luck.
 
infinitethoughts said:
Ophiolite:

If you want to call it a speculate. I don't care.
.
That is, on a science forum, in the physics and maths section (the two truly hard sciences, unless you dismiss maths as a tool not a science) you don't care to use the terminology of science. You don't care to use the methodology of science. You don't care to be scientific.
I care enough to seek to educate you in the fundamental error you are making. I presume, because you are on a science board and are making a speculation related to science, that you are interested in science. I am trying to advise you that your approach is wholly unscientific. You however, don't care.
Guess what, I still do, but I'm buggered if I'll waste any more time trying to get through to you.
 
I have two questions:

Do you suppose human free will as the origin of parallel routes through the multiverse, or do all uncertain quantum interactions also cause branching?

Is it testable?
 
CANGAS said:
I reread your post.

You suffer from a flawed guess about my reading skills and a flawed guess about the importance of your 115 year old rehash of Minkowski spacetime geometry.

In an effort to "just talk about the damn thing" I posted my opinion.

Apparently you just wanna talk about the damn thing with delusional people who agree with your concept that a sequence of events can be something other that a timely process.

Lots Of Luck.

The journey to parallel universes or sequence of events is based on human decisions. That is what I am saying.
 
Laika said:
I have two questions:

Do you suppose human free will as the origin of parallel routes through the multiverse, or do all uncertain quantum interactions also cause branching?

Is it testable?

I think uncertain quantum interactions can not play a part, because all the experiences of the individual are experienced only by themselves and no one else.

I hope that makes sense. If not let me know.

Is it testable ? That is the supreme goal. One of the obstacles is what I said above. How does one objectify this process to test it.
 
So what makes humans so special?
Is it testable ? That is the supreme goal. One of the obstacles is what I said above. How does one objectify this process to test it.
It doesn't seem to me like you can, which explains the response you've received after posting it on the physics and maths sub-forum in the guise of a genuine theory.
 
It is actually possible to have a notion of "before and after" without a notion of "how long". In the usual metric theory of spacetime, the metric provides both a causal structure and measure for spacetime separations. The causal structure tells you about before and after while the measure provides a sense of how far and how long. The usual Lorentz group preserves both these structures, but it is possible to take the causal structure as more fundamental. The transformations which preserve only the causal structure are called conformal transformations. These transformations keep the light cones of the theory invariant i.e. they preserve the path of light rays, and it these null lines that determine the causal structure. One is left with a spacetime that has an order given by the causal structure and a sense of nearness provided by the basic topology but no invariant metrical structure. It therefore makes sense to say that event A happened before event B, and that there is "something in between", but you can't measure the time between events.

Obviously our world is not conformally invariant, but this notion of conformal invariance actually has some physical applications. For example, it has bearing on the physics of particles at very high energy. It might also be relevant for understanding the origin of mass since a massless world would be conformally invariant. Also, in a certain technical sense the description of a relativistic string is conformally invariant.
 
The concepts of "before and after" are self induced, prima facie hard evidence of a sequence IN TIME, even if some quasi-incomprehensible mathematical prestidigtation enables lack of measuremant of the intervening interval.

We all know that it is entirely possible to concoct physics theories and mathematical models which are self consistent but at total conflict with observable reality. In my opinion, Minkowski spacetime is in deep trouble in this respect.

The fact that some specific activity is possible within some specific mathematical model does not overcome me with shock and awe. Accurate observation of reality does enough of that for me.
 
Last edited:
Physics Monkey said:
It is actually possible to have a notion of "before and after" without a notion of "how long". In the usual metric theory of spacetime, the metric provides both a causal structure and measure for spacetime separations. The causal structure tells you about before and after while the measure provides a sense of how far and how long. The usual Lorentz group preserves both these structures, but it is possible to take the causal structure as more fundamental. The transformations which preserve only the causal structure are called conformal transformations. These transformations keep the light cones of the theory invariant i.e. they preserve the path of light rays, and it these null lines that determine the causal structure. One is left with a spacetime that has an order given by the causal structure and a sense of nearness provided by the basic topology but no invariant metrical structure. It therefore makes sense to say that event A happened before event B, and that there is "something in between", but you can't measure the time between events.

Obviously our world is not conformally invariant, but this notion of conformal invariance actually has some physical applications. For example, it has bearing on the physics of particles at very high energy. It might also be relevant for understanding the origin of mass since a massless world would be conformally invariant. Also, in a certain technical sense the description of a relativistic string is conformally invariant.

And on that note I shall humbly retire from this discussion. It's all yours, Physics Monkey.
 
Laika said:
So what makes humans so special?
It doesn't seem to me like you can, which explains the response you've received after posting it on the physics and maths sub-forum in the guise of a genuine theory.

Strange guestion. What makes humans so special. But I guess it all depends on your worldview. If you think everything is simply regulated by the on and off firings of neutrons within the brain one could ask that question.

If your worldview is that consciousness precedes the on and off firings, then it's a strange question.

Personally I find it hard to believe that the on and off firings of neutrons can generate this level of experiential-ness and intelligence.
 
N e u r o ns.

Not neu T rons.

Or, ARE you speaking of a theory of consciousness based upon the disintegration of neutrons within a brain? Within an atom a neutron is very stable, but a free neutron has a half life of only minutes, as you know.
 
I strongly believe that consciousness is a spiritual identity, not a physical phenomena. We do obviously have a strong sense of identity with our physical vehicles.
 
CANGAS said:
I strongly believe that consciousness is a spiritual identity, not a physical phenomena. We do obviously have a strong sense of identity with our physical vehicles.

So now we have the issue that if one believes that consciousness is more then just neurons sparking in a physical brain, how does one conduct objective experiments to try and figure out if there are untold parallel universes "layed out" so to speak, and the human threads his way thru them by the default decisions (the ones forced upon him) he makes and the non-default, conscious decisions he makes.

It is a dilemma.
 
CANGAS,

I appreaciate your concern about mathematical constructions that have no bearing on reality. However, the language in which I framed my reply is a standard one for physicists, and when discussing issues that are far beyond the realm of common experience, it is necessary to have a clear and precise language for describing the structure of the world. As I said, it is obviously true that we do not live in a conformally invariant world at low energies, but this description of the world does have certain physical applications as I indicated in my original post. Furthermore, despite what you suggest, it is definitely possible to imagine a world where there is no "time" as a measurable quantity. It is simply not correct to say that causality or sequentiality of events requires the notion of being "in time". The notion of being "in time" is already severly limited by the general theory of relativity where it is not in general possible to even define a universal "time". In my opinion, these considerations and the doubts they raise should not be dismissed from discussions of the fundamental nature of time owing to the great and continued success of general relativity in describing the observed universe.
 
“ Originally Posted by Light
"experiential-ness"

What is that word supposed to mean? ”

infinitethoughts said:
Exactly how I just said it.

Ok, then it's nothing. Meaningless - since there is no such word. I don't think it even came close to what you were trying to express. I'll not be concerned with it.
 
Light said:
“ Originally Posted by Light
"experiential-ness"

What is that word supposed to mean? ”



Ok, then it's nothing. Meaningless - since there is no such word. I don't think it even came close to what you were trying to express. I'll not be concerned with it.

Right.
 
infinitethoughts said:
Personally I find it hard to believe that the on and off firings of neutrons can generate this level of experiential-ness and intelligence.

I am curious to know on what you base this assertion. It seems to me this assertion is based on a fundamental underestimation of the unimaginably enormous complexity that can arise from only a few building blocks. Skepticism is certainly healthy, but no one can seriously deny the possibility that a few building blocks could account for everything we see. Furthermore, there is a considerable and growing body of evidence that one can indeed reproduce even something as complicated as a human using only the basic interactions and without introducing additional notions.
 
Back
Top